Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
PaperclipPerfector
13hr ago
(text post)
335 thread views
Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Court opinion:
In year 1985, on a dead-end street that terminates at a beach, two properties are created*, one on the beachfront at the end of the street and another with the first property between it and the beach. The beachfront property is encumbered with a restrictive covenant forbidding any construction or landscaping taller than four feet in the rear 40 percent of the lot, "specifically imposed for the benefit of" the non-beachfront property. In year 2002, the federal and state governments obstruct the ocean view with a tall dune in order to mitigate erosion.
In year 2015, Frank buys the non-beachfront property for 5.2 megadollars. In year 2018, John buys the beachfront property for 5.3 megadollars (outbidding Frank, who also wants to buy it). John demolishes the existing beachfront house and builds a new one. But the new house's landscaping includes trees taller than four feet in the restricted area, so Frank sues John to force him to prune the trees down to four feet.
In court, John argues that the restrictive covenant is superfluous because the ocean view that it was intended to preserve for the non-beachfront property no longer exists. But the trial judge rejects this argument, and the appeals panel affirms. The restrictive covenant is unambiguous, and it is not unreasonable to interpret it as intended to preserve the non-beachfront property's view, not just of the ocean, but also of "the scenic dunes and beachscape that surrounds it".
*Insert Georgism joke about how land cannot be created. Insert Nederland joke about how land can be created.
Court opinion:
A woman reports to the police that a man has trespassed in her house and fallen asleep there. The responding police officers are familiar with the trespasser, and note that his car is parked outside the house, with the key and a bunch of cash plainly visible through the car's windows.
The officers arrest the trespasser and bring him to the police station, which is just three blocks away from the house. The officers note that the trespasser appears drunk, but do not think that there is enough evidence to additionally charge him with driving to the house while drunk. The officers remind the trespasser that he's too intoxicated to drive legally, offer to drive him home, warn him that his car is presenting an enticing target to thieves, and suggest that he call someone to drive the car away. The trespasser assures the officers that he will get picked up by someone else, and tells them that he won't bother to call anyone to drive the car away. He is not so intoxicated that he is a danger to himself, so the officers release him from custody (rather than making him sober up in an emergency room for a few hours).
At this point, three hours have passed since the initial report. One of the officers drives back to the house to make sure that the trespasser doesn't drive the car away. The officer immediately sees the car being driven away. The officer can't see who the driver is, but suspects that it is the trespasser, and on that suspicion tries to pull the car over. The driver tries to escape at high speed for half a mile, but eventually stops and is revealed to be the trespasser. The officer notes that the trespasser still appears intoxicated (though less than he was three hours prior), and arrests the trespasser for (inter alia) drunk driving.
At trial, the trespasser argues that the officer did not have enough suspicion to stop the car. But the trial judge rejects this argument, and the appeals panel affirms. The "reasonable suspicion" necessary for a warrantless motor-vehicle stop is a low bar, and the officer in this case cleared that bar when he observed the car being driven away in conjunction with the trespasser's statement that he wasn't going to call anyone to drive it away.
There was also a case that I posted in the Wednesday Wellness Thread.
Two exceptionally reasonable decisions that give me confidence that the justice system works like it should.
I hope John had to pay the court+Frank a shitload of money for wasting their time and being a shitty neighbor.
It looks like Frank did demand court costs in his complaint. But costs are mentioned in neither the trial judge's opinion nor the appeals panel's opinion, so I assume that these costs (and Frank's entitlement to them) will not be determined until after the appeals process has concluded.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link